We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 15

VPPA Meets Spokeoand Court Lets Case Continue
  • Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP
  • USA
  • September 22 2016

In the latest decision involving the application of the Video Privacy Protection Act to modern technology, a federal court in Massachusetts refused


Supreme Court rules that reverse-payment patent litigation settlements are subject to judicial review under the antitrust rule of reason
  • Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • USA
  • August 19 2013

On June 17th, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a decade of conflicting circuit court opinions when it held in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc


FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: Supreme Court rules that reverse payment patent settlements may violate antitrust laws
  • Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 21 2013

On June 17, 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,the Supreme Court issued a ruling that will have far reaching effects on the pharmaceutical industry and


FTC v. Actavis: what does it mean for reverse-payment settlements?
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 20 2013

On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of


Supreme Court deals blow to reverse payment settlements
  • Fish & Richardson PC
  • USA
  • June 18 2013

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that "large unexplained" reverse payments in Hatch-Waxman litigation settlements, even if within the "scope of the


Supreme Court hears arguments in FTC v. Actavis
  • Banner Witcoff
  • USA
  • March 27 2013

On March 25, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, a case involving a circuit split regarding "pay for


Supreme Court to consider legality of reverse payment settlement agreements
  • Brinks Gilson & Lione
  • USA
  • December 11 2012

On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, et. al. (11th Cir.).


Third Circuit creates reverse payments split among the circuits
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 25 2012

Rejecting the test established by three separate courts of appeal, the Third Circuit's recent decision in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation has created a circuit split regarding the legality of, and application of antitrust law to, "pay-for-delay" settlements to patent lawsuits.


Third Circuit holds that “reverse settlement” payments are prima facie evidence of an antitrust violation, widening Circuit split
  • Paul Weiss
  • USA
  • July 19 2012

The Federal Trade Commission and class action plaintiffs achieved a significant victory this week in their ongoing effort to invalidate “reverse settlement” payments among manufacturers of branded and generic pharmaceuticals.


Third Circuit rules in favor of FTC view on pharmaceutical patent settlements: next stop, Supreme Court?
  • Hogan Lovells
  • USA
  • July 19 2012

On 16 July 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision holding that pharmaceutical patent settlements that restrict generic entry and contain a payment to the generic company are presumptively unlawful under the antitrust laws.